French law forbids food waste by supermarkets

[Still Waters]

France has become the first country in the world to ban supermarkets from throwing away or destroying unsold food, forcing them instead to donate it to charities and food banks.

Under a law passed unanimously by the French senate, as of Wednesday large shops will no longer bin good quality food approaching its best-before date. Charities will be able to give out millions more free meals each year to people struggling to afford to eat.

http://www.theguardi...by-supermarkets

[141]

great thing to do ...they have been doing this in Turkey for years . Everyday they put it out for the poor to take ...

[Careful_perspective]

This is some really amazing uplifting news! Honestly, I needed to see this. I truly think America needs a law like this.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Never happen in the US, you can't have anything given away for free, wheres the profit!

[aztek]

Never happen in the US, you can't have anything given away for free, wheres the profit!

and what makes you say that about us??? especially since you are not from us, and it is not even usa section of the forum.??? i wonder what you base your opinions about other aspects of usa life? on same thing that just made you form this opinion?

there are programs here called food harvest, food donation collection, city harvest,... that collects unused unexpired food. they have been operating for decades.

there are prbly more none profit organisations in usa, than there are all organisation in australia

Edited February 9, 2016 by aztek

[Thorvir]

This is some really amazing uplifting news! Honestly, I needed to see this. I truly think America needs a law like this.

Except that it takes away freedoms. No one should be forced to donate to charity. It should be freely done.

More people should just because it's a nice thing to do, not because it's a law.

[Careful_perspective]

Never happen in the US, you can't have anything given away for free, wheres the profit!

The profit is the good P.R you get for doing something good. Like Colgate or Crest or whichever toothpaste company spent millions on a super bowl commercial to tell people to turn off their water to conserve. Yet, the amount of money spent on that commercial could have funded so much in water conservation. Yet, they did it for good P.R.

Except that it takes away freedoms. No one should be forced to donate to charity. It should be freely done.

More people should just because it's a nice thing to do, not because it's a law.

Sigh...I guess you may be right.

[Dark_Grey]

Except that it takes away freedoms. No one should be forced to donate to charity. It should be freely done.

More people should just because it's a nice thing to do, not because it's a law.

In this instance it should be forced. What's the point of growing ridiculous amounts of food when almost half gets tossed? If it has a blemish, or it's not the right size, or the color is off, it never makes it to market (I'm not even going to touch restaurant or household waste). With overpopulation quickly becoming the next big hurdle, we should be greatly revamping our current methods of food distribution. We probably can sustain 10 billion, given the amount of food produced vs. calories ingested, but all we've been doing so far is stuffing the faces of first-worlders and chucking the rest in to the alley.

It sounds simple - until you factor in politics and money. The two biggest reasons why we have excess on our tables while across the sea people are literally dying of starvation.

[aztek]

It sounds simple - until you factor in politics and money. The two biggest reasons why we have excess on our tables while across the sea people are literally dying of starvation.

i do not think it is related in any way.

we constantly donate to those poor countries that have children die of hunger by thousands daily, UN and WHO brings food there, but those kids still die, and countries are still hungry. regardless of amount of food and money sent there.

someone on the spot takes control of food, and money (whatever makes it there) , and it never gets to those in need.

even if we only had as much food as we eat, no leftovers, it would not do a single thing to those countries that stave.

Edited February 9, 2016 by aztek

[supervike]

Never happen in the US, you can't have anything given away for free, wheres the profit!

You'd be pleasantly surprised at the amount of non-prophet charities operating in the states.

My local food bank (where I've donated lots of time) is a gigantic warehouse of food and supplies, and a constant army of volunteers that keep it moving.

There isn't a lot of press about this sort of thing, but that's just one small example.

The biggest problem most of our food banks have, isn't getting food, it's places to store it, and then get it out to folks before expiry dates.

I am constantly astounded by the sheer amount of people that turn up to volunteer at these places.

[Dark_Grey]

i do not think it is related in any way.

we constantly donate to those poor countries that have children die of hunger by thousands daily, UN and WHO brings food there, but those kids still die, and countries are still hungry. regardless of amount of food and money sent there.

someone on the spot takes control of food, and money (whatever makes it there) , and it never gets to those in need.

It sounds simple - until you factor in politics and money. The two biggest reasons why we have excess on our tables while across the sea people are literally dying of starvation.

I think we're on the same page.

[skookum]

Great start.

However fisherman still dump thousands of tons of dead fish and supermarkets have been unable to sell odd size and shape vegetables and fruit.

All very good giving unsold stuff to charity but huge amounts are destroyed before they go on sale.

[Michelle]

supermarkets have been unable to sell odd size and shape vegetables and fruit.

All very good giving unsold stuff to charity but huge amounts are destroyed before they go on sale.

Why don't they go ahead and juice them instead of sending them to market? Or send them to a canner where they are going to be cut into chunks anyway?

[Careful_perspective]

i do not think it is related in any way.

we constantly donate to those poor countries that have children die of hunger by thousands daily, UN and WHO brings food there, but those kids still die, and countries are still hungry. regardless of amount of food and money sent there.

someone on the spot takes control of food, and money (whatever makes it there) , and it never gets to those in need.

even if we only had as much food as we eat, no leftovers, it would not do a single thing to those countries that stave.

You know, you are so right. The book "Dead Aid" goes into this issue in detail. Specifically as to why aid never gets to Africa although the western world sends a whole bunch of money.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

there are prbly more non profit organisations in usa, than there are all organisation in australia

There are more Americans in New York then there are Australisns in Australia.

[spartan max2]

Are these superstores also going to be free from liability if someone gets sick from the unbought food?

I like the sound of the law but I'm alittle cautious because I want to know why stores already don't do this? There has to be a reason

Edited February 9, 2016 by spartan max2

[+Hammerclaw]

Most of it won't be given away or donated. They'll just cut the price to move product before expiration date to minimize loss.

[toast]

Except that it takes away freedoms. No one should be forced to donate to charity. It should be freely done.

More people should just because it's a nice thing to do, not because it's a law.

I think the issue is a little bit different here especially with the France situation. I watched a TV documentary about the global

wasting of food, which is 50% of all produced food globally. A part of this documentary was about the Marché international de Rungis ,

near to Paris, which is on of the biggest food markets in the world and where thousands of tons of good food get wasted every year and

some examples had been shown in the documentary. There was a truck coming from Spain with 18 tons of oranges. A quality officer

checked a part of the load with the result that in some boxes there were mildewed oranges, means, in one box out of ten. Due to this

little amount of mildewed oranges, the whole load of 18tons got wasted because it would not make sense to separate the mildewed

ones due to economical reasons and due to the lack of manpower to do this. I was also reported, that the area where the to be wasted

food gets stored, got fenced a few month b4 so that ppl do not have access to that area to pick up the good food.

So, with the new regulations, France did a very very good job here.

[Thorvir]

In this instance it should be forced. What's the point of growing ridiculous amounts of food when almost half gets tossed?

I'm not talking about the act of charity itself, I'm talking about a government forcing it's citizens to do anything, good or bad, that the person in question does not want to do . We live in a free society, we're not supposed to have a government run our lives (sigh). If someone doesn't want to donate, that is their choice and they should never be forced. I think they SHOULD donate, if possible, but it is up to them.

It's called freedom of choice.

If it has a blemish, or it's not the right size, or the color is off, it never makes it to market (I'm not even going to touch restaurant or household waste). With overpopulation quickly becoming the next big hurdle, we should be greatly revamping our current methods of food distribution. We probably can sustain 10 billion, given the amount of food produced vs. calories ingested, but all we've been doing so far is stuffing the faces of first-worlders and chucking the rest in to the alley.

It sounds simple - until you factor in politics and money. The two biggest reasons why we have excess on our tables while across the sea people are literally dying of starvation.

Again, I'm not specifically pointing out charity, I'm pointing out how it's wrong to force anyone to do anything they don't want to. Within reason, it's good to force serial killers to stop (or stop living), after all...at least they'll suffer the repercussions of their choices.

[Thorvir]

I think the issue is a little bit different here especially with the France situation.

I was talking about Rinna's comment about having it happen here, in the US, where are lives are a bit more free to live than in France. If France, and the French people, want to force or be forced to give to charity, that's up to them.

I watched a TV documentary about the global wasting of food, which is 50% of all produced food globally. A part of this documentary was about the Marché international de Rungis ,

near to Paris, which is on of the biggest food markets in the world and where thousands of tons of good food get wasted every year and

some examples had been shown in the documentary. There was a truck coming from Spain with 18 tons of oranges. A quality officer

checked a part of the load with the result that in some boxes there were mildewed oranges, means, in one box out of ten. Due to this

little amount of mildewed oranges, the whole load of 18tons got wasted because it would not make sense to separate the mildewed

ones due to economical reasons and due to the lack of manpower to do this. I was also reported, that the area where the to be wasted

food gets stored, got fenced a few month b4 so that ppl do not have access to that area to pick up the good food.

So, with the new regulations, France did a very very good job here.

Great. But not important to what I was talking about. Wasting food is terrible. Sending to those in need is a great thing.

[toast]

I was talking about Rinna's comment about having it happen here, in the US,

Sorry, my fault!

[Thorvir]

Sorry, my fault!

It's cool. I agree with you about getting excess food out to those in need. More importantly, I'd like to see the conditions in those areas that lack food to improve so they won't need to live off of charity. But that's closer to a perfect world, and a perfect world ain't happening anytime soon, sadly.

[Likely Guy]

When they say half the food that is produced is thrown out how much of that is household? If that's factored in I'm sure the greater proportion is household. As a single person I hate buying a whole head of lettuce, cabbage or cauliflower because I know that I won't be able to eat it all.

I wish they could make them smaller.

[EEHC]

I'm not talking about the act of charity itself, I'm talking about a government forcing it's citizens to do anything, good or bad, that the person in question does not want to do . We live in a free society, we're not supposed to have a government run our lives (sigh). If someone doesn't want to donate, that is their choice and they should never be forced. I think they SHOULD donate, if possible, but it is up to them.

It's called freedom of choice.

Then the governement should give incentives to big supermarkets to donate the good, eatable food they can't sell and end up in the trash. I think everyone can agree that something should be done about this, but we might differ on the approach that needs to be taken to prevent that.

Edited February 10, 2016 by EEHC

[Thorvir]

Then the governement should give incentives to supermarket to donate their food waste, because throwing large amount of good, eatable food in the trash for aesthetic reasons - when there are people starving is ridiculous.

Sure, as long as those incentives aren't harmful to the operation of those supermarkets and cut into their profits. They're trying to make a living as well, they're just as human as those in need.

I think eveyrone agree that something should be done about this, but we might differ on the approach.

And that something is government interference? That something is losing freedoms? I guess we do differ on the approach, as I don't think anyone should be forced to do good...it's not really "good", then, is it? Maybe the problems causing the needs for all of this charity should be addressed instead.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard